The question is whether we can successfully search the specified sequence space using a genetic algorithm—and we can.

Right and the “genetic” algorithm was written by an intelligent angency.

As for the evolution of the eyes/ vision system- no one can simulate that until we understand cellular differentiation and all the other aspects- what DNA sequence(s) are involved- required to construct the eye and vision system.

If someone creates a simulation or projection of evolution that is based on intelligent design while claiming that it is an example of Darwinian evolution, then they are very likely going to be mocked.

It may be likely, and possibly deserved, but it seems to me neither necessary nor helpful. If I were in their shoes (say I had put together a simulation that I felt supported ID, and some Darwinists found some actual weaknesses in it, or at least aspects it didn’t address), what response from them would be likely to yield progress in the debate — respectfully and generously pointing out the shortcomings, giving the benefit of the doubt; or mocking the whole thing as “yet more IDiocy” ? You get the point. The former would certainly win more respect from me, and more willingness to work together toward a simulation that many on both sides could agree was reliable and showed something significant about the capabilities of relevant processes.

If you’re concerned about Darwinist bias in presenting evidence such as computer simulation, you shouldn’t counter that with something from an “ID point of view.” The proper way to argue against a biased point of view is to maintain objectivity. Fighting prejudice with prejudice is rarely very helpful.

I agree with you in principle, and maybe I didn’t express myself as clearly as I would have liked. Probably because my thinking is not fully resolved. Ideally one should be objective; but all sides are likely to claim objectivity, when in fact they’re not always objective. A lawyer for the defense may say “The prosecution is pro-guilty, but here is an objective analysis,” and bravo if it’s true, but a rational jurist will assume the defense has its own bias and try to evaluate the evidence he presents in that light. I know I would be perceived more as a defense lawyer than a jurist in this court case, and perhaps rightfully so.

So it seems to me more helpful to state your prejudices, while doing your best to think and work objectively. That’s why I hesitate to say “let’s have an objective simulation rather than a Darwinly-biased one” even though that is what I would like to see.

A little more on the eye:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.co....._1_05.html

The very first eye to suddenly appear in the fossil record was attached to one of the very first complex organism to abruptly appear in the fossil record: The now-extinct trilobites:

“One of the most interesting of the many different species that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct trilobites. Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies of trilobites’ eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a real wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says, “the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”

A 2001 Science article says:

Cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced “twigs” on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. …Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian.”

As well the Chinese Cambrian fossil field is said. by Dr. Paul Chien possesser the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America, to be excellent in its preservation of so^ft * bod^ ied fossils both before and during the Cambrian explosion.

That pretty much destroys their “The eye evolved because there was time for it to evolve” argument doesn’t it.

btw, i didn’t mean to sound so blunt.

The criticism of the simulations is that they do not use a blind-to-the-future Darwinian approach. They are examples of front-loading: the goal is known at the outset.

This is the key point. As I pointed out in my comment #16, no search is even necessary, because what is being sought was already found before the program was even launched. The algorithm simply represents a very awkward way of looking up words in a dictionary. It is no great accomplishment to find something that was never lost, and to do so very inefficiently.

I found this site on the eye:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.co.....ty_05.html

Of Special note:

There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by very different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster’s eye works on a principle of reflection, rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture, these squares are positioned most precisely. As one astronomer commented in Science: “The lobster is the most unrectangular animal I’ve ever seen. But under the microscope a lobster’s eye looks like perfect graph paper.”356

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster’s eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.

The lobster eye is composed of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.

The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments, so that they all focus the light at a single point.

Michael Land, a scientist and researcher at the University of Sussex in England, was the first to examine the lobster eye structure in detail. Land stated that the eye structure had a most surprising design.357

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution.

I’m not sure that anyone here disputes that. What is being discussed is whether eyes in reality (or in a simulation) evolve via a Darwinian mechanism or some other unknown mechanism.

The criticism of the simulations is that they do not use a blind-to-the-future Darwinian approach. They are examples of front-loading: the goal is known at the outset. They are therefore examples of a form of evolution by intelligent design.

If someone creates a simulation or projection of evolution that is based on intelligent design while claiming that it is an example of Darwinian evolution, then they are very likely going to be mocked.

I think you make some good points, but not without a little confusion. If you’re concerned about Darwinist bias in presenting evidence such as computer simulation, you shouldn’t counter that with something from an “ID point of view.” The proper way to argue against a biased point of view is to maintain objectivity. Fighting prejudice with prejudice is rarely very helpful.